Loading...
Planning Comm MINS 12-10-2003K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 12-10-03.doc City of Federal Way PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting December 10, 2003 King County Library 7:00 p.m. 320th Street MEETING MINUTES Commissioners present: John Caulfield, Hope Elder, Dave Osaki, Dini Duclos, Grant Newport, and Bill Drake. Commissioners absent (excused): Marta Justus Foldi. Alternate Commissioners present: Lawson Bronson, Merle Pfeifer, and Tony Moore. Alternate Commissioners absent: Christine Nelson (excused). City Council Members present: Mayor Jeanne Burbidge and Deputy Mayor Dean McColgan. Staff present: Senior Planner Margaret Clark, Code Compliance Officer Martin Nordby, Assistant City Attorney Karen Jorgensen, and Administrative Assistant E. Tina Piety. Chair Caulfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was m/s/c (with one abstain) to adopt the November 19, 2003, minutes as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENT None. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT None. COMMISSION BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING – Oversized Vehicle Code Amendment Mr. Nordby delivered the staff report. He remarked that these amendments do not apply to recreational vehicles, which will be dealt with at a later date. It was noted that neighborhood covenants supercede the Federal Way City Code. He commented that per RCW 46.25.010, “Gross Vehicle Weight Rating” (GVWR) means the value specified by the manufacturer as the maximum loaded weight of a single or a combination or articulated vehicle, or the registered gross weight, where this value cannot be determined. The GVWR of a combination or articulated vehicle, commonly referred to as the “gross combined weight rating” or GCWR, is the GVWR of the power unit plus the GVWR of the towed unit or units. The meeting was opened to public testimony. Elbert Field – He commented that his concern isn’t commercial vehicles, but irresponsible drivers. Some people need to be able to bring their commercial vehicle home because they are on-call. John Leskover – He has a backhoe on a SR15 lot. He uses it for developing his property. He is concerned that under the proposed amendments, his backhoe would be restricted. It is listed as a commercial vehicle in the proposed definition in Exhibit C. He doesn’t understand why it would Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 10, 2003 K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 12-10-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:58 PM be classified commercial since he is only using it on his property, and not for commercial purposes. He would like to see construction vehicles removed from the proposed definition for commercial vehicles. He noted that while the backhoe is not large it is very heavy, and it would not be suitable to park it in his driveway. Steve Dice – He is concerned with the livability of neighborhoods. He opposes the 12,000 GVWR limit, but would support the 10,000 GVWR. Sue Ellebrecht – She commented that a neighbor has a large commercial panel truck that they often park in their driveway. However, sometimes they park it in the street and that causes safety problems. She has come close to an accident because of maneuvering around the truck. Larger vehicles are a driving hazard. Scott Chase – He commented that at the last meeting staff showed pictures of vehicles and he saw many tow trucks that would fall under a 12,000 GVWR limit. This is unacceptable. He commented that a neighbor said he was unable to sleep due to the activity of a tow truck in their neighborhood. He opposes the 12,000 GVWR limit but would support a 10,000 GVWR limit. Mike Bochantin – He opposes the 12,000 GVWR limit because it would allow tow trucks and they cause too much disruption. Bob Rawlins – He commented that he read the newspaper article on this issue and asked if the Commission had considered the effect these heavy vehicles have on the roads? If vehicles of 12,000 GVWR are allowed, what kind of damage might that do to the roads? Jean Atwell – She supports the 10,000 GVWR limit. She wants commercial vehicles out of neighborhoods. It is difficult to get by large vehicles with the narrow streets found in neighborhoods. Richard Fiegel – He is against the increase in weight. Commercial vehicles and residential areas do not mix. Lawson Bronson, Alternate Planning Commissioner – He commented that these amendments deal only with parking commercial vehicles on private property. The police regulate parking on the street. Marie Sciacqua – She lives next door to someone who brings their tow truck home and it causes numerous problems. She feels the traffic codes need to be changed as well, in order to effectively deal with commercial vehicles being parked in neighborhoods. Alison Wood – She owns a backhoe that she keeps in her backyard. She has not received any complaints from her neighbors. She fears she would have to get rid of her backhoe if these amendments are adopted. She asked what about City vehicles when employees take them home at night? Wally Aikala – He commented that a neighbor parks semi’s in their neighborhood and he is concerned that is devaluing the neighborhood. Randy Bean – He supports the 10,000 GVWR limit, but opposes the 12,000 GVWR limit. He commented that he has worked at the Flying J Truck Stop and noted there is a clear transition to commercial at 12,000 GVWR. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 December 10, 2003 K:\Planning Commission\2003\Meeting Summary 12-10-03.doc/Last printed 1/10/2005 2:58 PM Rich Keltner – He supports the 10,000 GVWR limit. Chair Caulfield read into the record six emails from John W. (Bill) and Barbara Ellis, Pat Simmons, Daren Burgess, Robert Dixson, Eline and Erling Herredsvela, and Delfa J and Terry Quinn, all of which oppose the 12,000 GVWR limit. Public testimony was closed at 7:40. Discussion was held on the backhoe issue. It was suggested that they be grandfathered. It was suggested that since the intent of the amendments seems to be to regulate commercial vehicles that are used commercially, we should allow vehicles that are to be used for improvement of the property. It was suggested that a separate definition for commercial equipment be written. Concern was expressed that if we allow commercial equipment on property for improvement of that property, someone will bring in a large piece of equipment because “some day” they plan to improve the property, and that “some day” may be years in coming. Chair Caulfield commented that he would abstain from voting on this issue because he missed two meetings. It was m/s/c (one abstain, one no, four yes) to amend the proposed amendments to 10,000 GVWR to fit with the residents’ needs. It was m/s/c (one abstain, five yes) to allow large equipment for personal use as long as it is specific to the property and fits within the current dimensions of not more than nine feet in height and not more than 22 feet in length. It was m/s/c (one abstain, five yes) to recommend adoption of the proposed text amendments as amended. The proposed amendments will now go the City Council’s Land/Use Transportation Committee (LUTC) and then to the full Council. We will send notices to Parties of Record of these meetings. The recreational vehicles code amendments will probably be dealt with in the spring. The public hearing was closed. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. AUDIENCE COMMENT Scott Chase – He commented that currently in his neighborhood, no one has a backhoe, but he is concerned that with this amendment they could have a backhoe in every driveway. He asked that language concerning screening be included. They should not be allowed to park in front of houses. John Leskovar – He commented that we need to have these changes so that those who “do-it- yourself” can proceed. ADJOURN The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.